marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Fantastic Four: The Lost Adventure Vol 1 1
There are several glaring errors on this page. To begin with, there were no first appearances in this comic. All of those first appearance statements need to be removed. Second, although much of the comic featured artwork by Kirby and Sinnott, not all of it did. Third, this is not a reprint of Fantastic Four #108. Again, the main body of work came from 108, but not all of it. This the story as it was originally intended but never published. That's why it is called "the Lost Adventure". So the Kirby/Sinnott parts are kept, and the rest replaced by artwork from contemporary artists mimicking the more classic look. Thetrellan (talk) 21:59, February 17, 2016 (UTC) :: There are several glaring errors on this page. To begin with, there were no first appearances in this comic. All of those first appearance statements need to be removed. :: Actually Yes, these are first appearances of all of these characters because the Lost Adventure takes place in an alternate reality and this is the only comic that features these characters. If you've picked up a Marvel Handbook and read the reality indexes, you would know this. :: Second, although much of the comic featured artwork by Kirby and Sinnott, not all of it did. :: You're referring to Ron Frenz the artist who filled in the blanks in this story. Somebody omitted that information. How about instead of complaining about it not being there, you actually add the data. :: Third, this is not a reprint of Fantastic Four #108. Again, the main body of work came from 108, but not all of it. :: Have you actually read this comic? Or even the summary page? Because the Lost Adventure has the restored story by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, and a REPRINT of in the same book. :: I think you might want to work on your reading comprehension, because right now it's not that great if two out of three of your complaints are not correct. Instead of complaining about what is or isn't added, perhaps maybe contributing something to the site? :: Fair warning though: Right now I'm going to be closely watching your edits because (a) You've shown a lack of attention to detail and (b) have a really crappy attitude. Not a great start. It's be wise if you watch that in the future. :: Nausiated (talk) 03:35, February 18, 2016 (UTC) So a user whose very name screams 'attitude problem' is calling the kettle black? Surprise, surprise. Look, some will think referencing Wiki is a fault all its own, and would blame me for not relying on memory. Now, relying on memory, you seem to think I'm being a jerk. But you can look all you want, because dude, a rewriting of a story as it was originally intended does not constitute first appearances by every character. I'm not giving attitude. Attitude would be going ahead and rewriting based on my memory of an issue I no longer have access to. It sounds very much like you are the author of this page. Only the author would take an objective appraisal so personally. If so, be aware that seeing corrections in black and white, devoid of any audio or video to clue you in on non-verbals, can lead you to take things too harshly. Before you respond to these, please take a moment to consider that what you are responding to may not be an attack. I wasn't trying to give you attitude before, but now you've ticked me off. Don't be such a Richard. Thetrellan (talk) 04:46, February 18, 2016 (UTC) ::I'm not looking to get into a back and forth, I'll just rephrase the reasoning for why this article is largely correct as written: ::The fact that the first appearance status is absolutely accurate is not debatable, in fact, it could even more accurately be said that this is their only appearance. The reason this is firm is because states that the first story takes place in the alternate reality of Earth-8466 and that that reality's only appearance is the first story in this issue, so it therefore is the first and only appearance of these characters. ::Next, I can't speak to the correct or incorrect nature of there being incomplete information regarding an additional artist, but would simply advise that in the future these types of potential errors could simply be corrected rather than pointed out and expecting someone else to know whom you're saying is missing. In short, contributing to the community is more valuable than complaining about it. ::Hopefully you understand my elaboration on the reason behind why your main point was mistaken and you'll look to be constructive rather than combative going forward. -- Annabell (talk) 06:07, February 18, 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your prompt response. As I implied, I wasn't going for combative. That first guy was pretty offensive, and I'd appreciate you not blaming me. You tell someone they are giving you attitude, that's what you get. All I did was use the phrase "glaring flaws", mainly because the article gives the impression this is the first ever appearance of the Fantastic Four. I never in my wildest dreams thought a story like this would rate its own universe, considering there are no ramifications to it to contradict existing continuity, so replacing the original with it could be done without changing pretty much anything. So I didn't look for that information. But I see it now and offer apologies. The only problem was an omission to which I didn't have the required information, so my post wasn't as helpful as I had hoped it would be. Thetrellan (talk) 18:15, February 18, 2016 (UTC) :As opposed to complaining, I think that you contributed to the site greatly by notifying about the errors on the page. Right or wrong, remarks made in good faith are always welcome. I hope that this wouldn't encourage you to do it on the future also. No need to offer apologies, you were obviously treated unnecessarily harshly but still kept your attitude civil enough. –Mrkermit (talk) 23:40, February 18, 2016 (UTC)